Categories
Breaking News Editorial

Why Homo sapiens survived (and other hominins didn't)

Map of the potential distribution of archaic hominins, including H. erectus, H. floresiensis, H. neanderthalenesis, Denisovans and archaic African hominins, in the Old World at the time of the evolution and dispersal of H. sapiens between approximately 300 and 60 thousand years ago.
Credit: Roberts and Stewart. 2018. Defining the ‘generalist specialist’ niche for Pleistocene Homo sapiens. Nature Human Behaviour. [/caption]

Homo sapiens surviving extreme conditions

Archaeological and palaeoenvironmental datasets from the Middle and Late Pleistocene eras have come under critical review in the recent collaboration between the Max Planck Institute and the University of Michigan. Hominin movement and biological development within and beyond Africa proves our species’ ability to occupy diverse and ‘extreme’ settings around the world. This could well explain how Homo sapiens became the last surviving hominin on the planet. Previously, it was thought that early homo sapiens had stayed close to the coast or savannahs, not infiltrating extreme environments until around 15,000 years ago. But this new evidence has shown humans were in tougher climates far earlier, affecting the debate over what it means to be human – as a Homo sapien, at least.

What does it mean to be human?

“So much focus has gone into finding the next artwork, the next fossil, that in the search for a sort of ‘modernity’ as it is often put – other fundamental elements were neglected,” says Dr Patrick Roberts from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. Under this new theory, investigations into what separates Homo sapiens from our ancestors would shift away from attempts to uncover the earliest traces of art, language and technological complexity. They’d move, instead, towards understanding what makes our species ecologically unique.

New ideas of Neanderthal creativity

Recent research exposed the fact that our Neanderthal cousins created art before Homo sapiens, and were therefore capable of creating symbolism independently. Because of this, the lines between Homo sapiens and our ancestors are becoming increasingly blurred. You can read more about Neanderthal creativity and the recent discoveries that probe into it here. [caption id="attachment_8774" align="aligncenter" width="500"] A model an adult Neanderthal male head and shoulders on display in the Hall of Human Origins in the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. Credit: Tim Evanson[/caption]

Ancestral ecologies

In contrast to other hominins, our species not only colonised environments as varied as deserts, tropical rainforests, high altitude settings and the palaeoarctic, but also flourished in these extreme conditions. Looking at our ancestral ecologies, we know that the genus Homo is highly diverse. Although often given the blanket name of ‘human,’ both academically and colloquially, using one term is certainly deceptive. There were a range of Homo species, all of which comfortably developed to reflect their surroundings. Homo erectus and Homo floresiensis (also known as ‘the Hobbit’) are thought to have occupied resource-scarce tropical rainforests from 1 million to 100,000 and 50,000 years ago respectively. The Neanderthals (Homo Neanderthalensis) occupied the high latitude areas of Eurasia between 250,000 and 40,000 years ago. To some extent, they backed themselves into an ecological corner, by only developing hunting skills in specialised environments.

What is the difference between ‘humans’ and Neanderthals?

While it might seem like there were gulfs between Homo sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis, it would be remiss not to point out that the Neanderthals were our closest hominin relatives. In fact, Homo Neanderthalensis shares 99.7% of DNA with Homo sapiens. The history, appearance, intelligence and behavioural similarities and differences between the two are explored by Daryl Worthington on the New Historian – click here to read more.

Rapid Homo sapien colonisation

In contrast to the rest, Homo sapiens had spread to higher-elevation niches by around 80-50,000 years ago. By 45,000 years ago, the species was rapidly colonising both palaeoarctic and tropical rainforest conditions in Asia, Melanesia and the Americas. In order to decipher how our species demonstrated its colonising capacity elsewhere in places like northwest India and the high elevations of Tibet and the Andes, better-dated and higher resolution environmental datasets are required.

Homo sapiens: the ‘generalist specialist’

Ultimately, the new theory is that Homo sapiens were a ‘generalist specialist’. The ’generalist specialist’ is a new ecological niche: one that reflects Homo sapiens’ ability to occupy a huge diversity of environmental settings across the majority of the Earth’s continents by the Late Pleistocene. Dr Patrick Roberts has written: “A traditional ecological dichotomy exists between ‘generalists’, who can make use of a variety of different resources and inhabit a variety of environmental conditions, and ‘specialists’, who have a limited diet and narrow environmental tolerance.” He continues: “However, Homo sapiens furnish evidence for ‘specialist’ populations, such as mountain rainforest foragers or palaeoarctic mammoth hunters, existing within what is traditionally defined as a ‘generalist’ species.”

How did Homo sapiens become a ‘generalist specialist’?

Dr Brian Stewart, from the Department of Archaeology at the University of Michigan, thinks that this new niche was carved out through extensive cooperation between non-kin individuals. He writes: “Non-kin food sharing, long-distance exchange, and ritual relationships would have allowed populations to ‘reflexively’ adapt to local climatic and environmental fluctuations, and outcompete and replace other hominin species.” It comes down to empathy, as well as an ability to accumulate and pass on cultural knowledge.

How our species became the last surviving hominin on the planet

“As with other definitions of human origins, problems of preservation also make it difficult to pinpoint the origins of humans as an ecological pioneer. However, an ecological perspective on the origins and nature of our species potentially illuminates the unique path of Homo sapiens as it rapidly came to dominate the Earth’s diverse continents and environments”, says Roberts. He writes: “Understanding this ecological niche provides a framework for discussing what it means to be human and how our species became the last surviving hominin on the planet.”]]>

Categories
News

Unintelligent Neanderthal Is A Myth

PLOS ONE, currently available scientific evidence does not support the premise of intellectual inferiority-based extinction. The paper was the combined work of lead author Paola Villa, a researcher and curator at the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History and co-author Wil Roebroeks, an archaeologist at Leiden University in the Netherlands. They wrote the paper after executing a large scale review on recent Neanderthal research. “The evidence for cognitive inferiority is simply not there,” Villa remarked. “What we are saying is that the conventional view of Neanderthals is not true.” Villa and Roebroeks examined several hypotheses including the one that claimed Neanderthals did not apply any elaborate symbolic communication. Other hypotheses claimed that the Neanderthals were less competent hunters compared to the early anatomically modern human. Some of the hypotheses also suggest the Neanderthals used low-grade weapons and that they had a limited range of diet which forced a competitive disadvantage on their side. Not a single hypothesis was supported by the available research. Evidence from multiple archaeological sites in Europe suggests that Neanderthals hunted as a group, using the landscape to aid them. Villa and Roebroeks show that Neanderthals had the ability to strategise. There is evidence that suggest Neanderthals likely drove hundreds of bison, rhinoceros and mammoths to their death by steering them into a sinkhole and ravines in south western France. These findings mean that Neanderthals were able to communicate effectively as a group, could plan ahead and were intelligent enough to take their surroundings into calculations. At another archaeological site, excavated artefacts proved that Neanderthals did in fact have a diverse diet. There were some traces of microfossils found in Neanderthal’s teeth and food remains which lead to the conclusion that Neanderthals may have eaten nearby available foods such as acorns, wild peas, grass seeds, pistachios, wild olives, date palms, and pine nuts. Other findings including ochre, a kind of earth pigment, at sites inhabited by Neanderthals. This may have been used for body painting, while ornaments suggest that Neanderthals had cultural rituals and symbolic communication. Villa and Roebroeks said that the previous misconception of Neanderthals’ intellectual capability may be due to researchers’ affinity to compare Neanderthals from Middle Paleolithic to modern Homo sapiens from Upper Paleolithic period, the time when technology advancement occurred. “Researchers were comparing Neanderthals not to their contemporaries on other continents but to their successors,” said Villa. “It would be like comparing the performance of Model T Fords, widely used in America and Europe in the early part of the last century, to the performance of a modern-day Ferrari and conclude that Henry Ford was cognitively inferior to Enzo Ferrari.” Villa also said that there is no support of any kind from the field of archaeology despite many attempts to relate the Neanderthals’ downfall to a single cause like intellectual or technology inferiority. However, one question continues to linger in the researcher’s mind. What is the real reason behind the Neanderthal extinction if it is not because of them being cognitively and technologically inferior? Whatever the reason might be, Villa and Roebroeks are in agreement that it is possibly a complex explanation. However, both researchers are of the opinion that some hints might be found in the recent studies of the Neanderthal genome. These studies suggest the possibility of inter-breeding between Neanderthals and modern humans that lead to the birth of infertile male progenies that unable to bear children. This would then lead to a decline in the Neanderthals’ population. Another suggestion based from studies was that Neanderthals lived in small communities. This leads to the possibility of assimilation and integration into a much larger modern humans’ population. So far, there is no solid explanation regarding the real causes of the Neanderthals extinction, but we all can bet that intellect inferiority is not one of them.]]>